View Full Version : Federal Judge: Blogger is not journalist,, What about Michael Yon??
Could one of our esteemed 2L's chime in..
Does this put Michael Yon in the Danger Zone???
Will it make him culpable for his malicious rants and lies??
I know Oregon is not the center of the spin world or the federal bench, but could this have repercussions to the blog-o-sphere world of self-aggrandizing talking-heads????
:munchin
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BLOGGER_DEFAMATION_SUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-07-20-39-18
Dec 7, 8:39 PM EST
Federal judge: Montana blogger is not journalist
By JEFF BARNARD
Associated Press
Technology Video
A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that a Montana woman sued for defamation was not a journalist when she posted online that an Oregon lawyer acted criminally during a bankruptcy case, a decision with implications for bloggers around the country.
Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., was sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick when she posted online that he was a thug and a thief during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC.
U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.
Although media experts said Wednesday that the ruling would have little effect on the definition of journalism, it casts a shadow on those who work in nontraditional media since it highlights the lack of case law that could protect them and the fact that current state shield laws for journalists are not covering recent developments in online media.
"My advice to bloggers operating in the state of Oregon is lobby to get your shield law improved so bloggers are covered," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "But do not expect the shield law to provide you a defense in a libel case where you want to rely on an anonymous source for that information."
The judge ruled that Cox was not protected by Oregon's shield law from having to produce sources, saying even though Cox defines herself as media, she was not affiliated with any mainstream outlet. He added that the shield law does not apply to civil actions for defamation.
continued.....
JJ - good question – IMO, Yon could conceivably have problems before that judge and before that court.
IIRC, a federal district court’s decision binds only the parties to that case. However the decision could be considered persuasive authority for other courts.
Members of the third branch, other lawyers and 2Ls can undoubtedly share more on the seemingly simply but deceptively complex concept of precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis.
The fact that we operate under dual parallel federal and state court systems also adds some complication to any discussion of a seemingly simple doctrine and could involve substantial elaboration.
I hope that this helps.
What I find scary about this verdict, is that the truth and right or wrong is not what is being judge, what is being judged is credentials and apparently in this Judges eyes the truth, the facts and what is right or wrong is solely based on what credentials you have.
So-called 'Journalists' like Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz can get away with slander and defamation, but Joe or Jane Public have no standing because they don't have a degree in Journalism.
It is a bad omen.
Paslode, valid observation - in point of fact - the bulk of our law grows out of an evolutionary approach to jurisprudence. IMO, it is our duty as citizens to criticize existing law when it does not serve valid goals or when conditions have substantially changed.
Bloggers should work within the system to fight for the same protections that traditional media currently enjoys - I have not studied the issue but if Bloggers want to be included in the shield law perhaps they should work with various legislatures to be included and protected.
Paslode, valid observation - in point of fact - the bulk of our law grows out of an evolutionary approach to jurisprudence. IMO, it is our duty as citizens to criticize existing law when it does not serve valid goals or when conditions have substantially changed.
Bloggers should work within the system to fight for the same protections that traditional media currently enjoys - I have not studied the issue but if Bloggers want to be included in the shield law perhaps they should work with various legislatures to be included and protected.
BUTT,,
If bloggers do get included,, They get to lie and defame as they wish..
I would rather they all lose their protection(s).
These "shield" laws have always given me angina...
:munchin
BUTT,,
If bloggers do get included,, They get to lie and defame as they wish...
...like some politicians and some of the exisiting mainstream media?
As I suggested, I have not studied the matter - perhaps no shield should be considered as well.
The legislative history on the existing shield laws might be interesting to peruse.
Paslode, valid observation - in point of fact - the bulk of our law grows out of an evolutionary approach to jurisprudence. IMO, it is our duty as citizens to criticize existing law when it does not serve valid goals or when conditions have substantially changed.
Bloggers should work within the system to fight for the same protections that traditional media currently enjoys - I have not studied the issue but if Bloggers want to be included in the shield law perhaps they should work with various legislatures to be included and protected.
Based on a quick review of Wiki, it should be noted that neither Matthews, nor Schultz are credentialed 'Journalists' they both are 'Political Commentators'. And the difference between a Political Commentator and a Blogger are..........not much other than a salary, a support staff, a union and a lobby.
So based on the Judges logic which is that you must have education in journalism to make claims, it is quite possible that not only are Bloggers in danger, but so are the like of other talking heads such as Matthews, Schultz, Beck and Limbaugh for they to lack the education to make the assertions they do.
I wonder how the Judge would view a protestor with a sign making the same claims as the blogger?
greenberetTFS
12-08-2011, 12:53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloggers
Doesn't this have an effect on OUR forum?.......... :eek: Can the posers we flush out use this to get back at us or TS?.........:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloggers
Doesn't this have an effect on OUR forum?.......... :eek: Can the posers we flush out use this to get back at us or TS?.........:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Based on the Oregon Federal Judges decision it would appear it could effect PS.com, TS or even the Drudge Report.........but a lot of that might depend on the Judge, the venue and your legal counsel.
Opinion is generally but not always protected.
Local law and context can be critical in the complex area of defamation suits.
Actions have consequences and if one arguably defames another they may face the consequences of their actions.
While truth is an absolute defense - and while one certainly has the opportunity to write what one wishes - truth may be difficult, risky and expensive to prove.
I believe that the defendant says that she will appeal this decision.
Here’s the post that reportedly got her in the most trouble:
http://www.bankruptcycorruption.com/2010/12/kevin-padrick-of-obsidian-finance-group.html
IMO, some bloggers may be journalists and some journalists may be bloggers (and some may be both) and the law has been slow to adapt to the new media.
The blogger decision out of Oregon - looks like she represented herself in this proceeding - may get to skim it over next few days.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/107229072/Obsidian-V-Cox---Ruling-Hearing
mark46th
12-09-2011, 13:27
TS doesn't post anything about a poser until he has hard evidence in hand.
alright4u
12-09-2011, 18:50
What I find scary about this verdict, is that the truth and right or wrong is not what is being judge, what is being judged is credentials and apparently in this Judges eyes the truth, the facts and what is right or wrong is solely based on what credentials you have.
So-called 'Journalists' like Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz can get away with slander and defamation, but Joe or Jane Public have no standing because they don't have a degree in Journalism.
It is a bad omen.
I cannot help but to wonder if the judge has spent any time on a number of internet blogs?
This ruling makes no sense, but; I had a man take an email I sent him and one that he merely printed out to support his claim for VA disability. Basically an email is treated as a letter.
I cannot help but to wonder if the judge has spent any time on a number of internet blogs?
This ruling makes no sense, but; I had a man take an email I sent him and one that he merely printed out to support his claim for VA disability. Basically an email is treated as a letter.
This is the stuff makes good Holiday table topic and sometimes draws frowns from the legal minds in attendance ;)
IMO.....or better yet, how I see it
It makes no sense to us commoners because in many instances we are looking at the bigger picture (so to speak), we are not focused on a single facet of the law as the Judge, Jury and Attorney are. And thus the legal system can focus on a single, minute detail and the other 99.9999% is absolutely irrelevant....or inadmissible.
The Blogger could be 99.9999% in the right or wrong, but it is that .0001% that can throw 99.9999% out the window.
Secondly the Lawyer was the Plaintiff so the work performed is likely Pro Bono which means as the Defendant you may need deep pockets to continue the fight.
As for an email (likely Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, This Forum, etc.) that is the same as having document with your signature on it.